Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

The End Of Class Actions?, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Article, I give a status report on the life expectancy of class action litigation following the Supreme Court's decisions in Concepcion and American Express. These decisions permitted corporations to opt out of class action liability through the use of arbitration clauses, and many commentators, myself included, predicted that they would eventually lead us down a road where class actions against businesses would be all but eliminated. Enough time has now passed to make an assessment of whether these predictions are coming to fruition. I find that, although there is not yet solid evidence that businesses have flocked to …

Statutory Interpretations And The Therapy Of The Obvious, Edward L. Rubin

Vanderbilt Law Review

Arthur Koestler wrote that "the more original a discovery the more obvious it seems afterward."' The same may be said about theories of law, and specifically about Robert Katzmann's new book, Judging Statutes. Judge Katzmann's approach to statutory interpretation seems so plausible and balanced that it is hard to believe that anyone ever believed anything else. In this particular case, however, there is in fact an "anything else." It is, of course, Justice Antonin Scalia's campaign to displace intentionalist or purposivist approaches to interpretation with what has come to be called "textualism," and his related effort to rule out reliance …

A More Intelligent And Just "Atkins:" Adjusting For The Flynn Effect In Capital Determinations Of Mental Retardation Or Intellectual Disability, Geraldine W. Young

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a ban on all executions of mentally retarded persons. This declaration, however, rings hollow for those mentally retarded defendants and inmates who continue to face death sentences as a result of the inconsistent enforcement of Atkins across jurisdictions. One issue in particular-whether to adjust intelligence-test scores for the phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect-has caused inconsistency among courts and has sparked a contentious battle among experts. It blurs the already-precarious line between life and death. And yet, the Flynn Effect captivates capital defendants and inmates with its promise of adjusting intelligence-test …

Lafler V. Cooper And Aedpa, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court in Missouri v. Frye1 and Lafler v. Cooper2 broke new ground by holding for the first time that a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment can be violated by the loss of a favorable plea deal. Less noted, but also worthy of attention, are Lafler’s implications for federal habeas law. Four Justices protested that the Lafler decision violated the federal habeas statute. At the least, the decision expanded habeas review in unexpected ways. Lafler presented the Supreme Court with an unusual opportunity to declare new doctrine on habeas review

The Four Pillars Of Constitutional Doctrine, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Constitutional interpretation, and thus constitutional doctrine, is inevitably controversial. Judges, scholars, lawyers, politicians, and the American public all disagree among themselves, not only about the correct constitutional outcome but even about the right approach to constitutional interpretation. We are unlikely to reach consensus on whether we should read the Constitution as a living and evolving document or instead read it in accordance with a fixed original meaning, much less on whether it does or does not protect campaign contributions, reproductive rights, affirmative action policies, gun ownership, or any of the other contested issues that have recently come before the Supreme …

Originalism And Summary Judgment, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Over the last several years, the Supreme Court has revolutionized modern criminal procedure by invoking the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to strike down several sentencing innovations. This revolution has been led by members of the Supreme Court who follow an "originalist" method of constitutional interpretation. Recent work by the legal historian Suja Thomas has raised the question whether a similar "originalist" revolution may be on the horizon in civil cases governed by the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. In particular, Professor Thomas has argued that the summary judgment device is unconstitutional because it permits judges …

Right Problem; Wrong Solution, Nancy J. King, Joseph L. Hoffmann

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court, in a powerful and eloquent majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, vindicated the right of a non-U.S. citizen, held in custody at a military base outside the United States, to use the writ to challenge the legality of his incarceration.1 Boumediene was a triumph of both the individual petitioner and the judiciary over the powers of the executive, and represents a high-water mark in the long and celebrated history of habeas.

The Liberal Tradition Of The Supreme Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, And Reincarnation?, William E. Nelson, Harvey Rishikof, I. Scott Messinger, Michael Jo

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article presents the first comprehensive empirical study of the post-clerkship employment of law clerks at the Supreme Court from 1882 to the present, and it uses that data to flesh out a historical and institutional interpretation of the clerkship and the recent political polarization of the Court more generally. The liberal tradition of the clerkship arose out of Louis Brandeis's vision of former law clerks serving a progressive legal agenda, a tradition that Felix Frankfurter helped institutionalize while striving to remove ideological bias. With the advent of a conservative bloc on the Court, this tradition has waned, due to …

Remaking The United States Supreme Court In The Courts' Of Appeals Image, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

We argue that Congress should remake the United States Supreme Court in the U.S. courts' of appeals image by increasing the size of the Court's membership, authorizing panel decision making, and retaining an en banc procedure for select cases. In so doing, Congress would expand the Court's capacity to decide cases, facilitating enhanced clarity and consistency in the law as well as heightened monitoring of lower courts and the other branches. Remaking the Court in this way would not only expand the Court's decision making capacity but also improve the Court's composition, competence, and functioning.

Remaking The United States Supreme Court In The Courts' Of Appeals Image, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

We argue that Congress should remake the United States Supreme Court in the U.S. courts' of appeals image by increasing the size of the Court's membership, authorizing panel decision making, and retaining an en banc procedure for select cases. In so doing, Congress would expand the Court's capacity to decide cases, facilitating enhanced clarity and consistency in the law as well as heightened monitoring of lower courts and the other branches. Remaking the Court in this way would not only expand the Court's decision making capacity but also improve the Court's composition, competence, and functioning.

Sherman Minton: Restraint Against A Tide Of Activism, Linda C. Gugin

Vanderbilt Law Review

Sherman Minton was not a great U.S. Supreme Court Justice, but he was far better than the image that scholars have created for him would indicate. Although there are exceptions, scholars generally consider Minton to have been an ineffective Justice who was put on the bench only because he was a crony of President Harry Truman. Indeed, the scholars who periodically provide a list of the "greatest" and "worst" Justices inevitably relegate Minton to the "worst" category. For example, Bernard Schwartz, who classified Minton as one of the ten worst Justices, said Minton "was below mediocrity as a Justice. His …

There Were Great Men Before Agamemnon, William R. Casto

Vanderbilt Law Review

John Marshall is the Agamemnon of Supreme Court history. He is universally considered the Court's greatest Justice, and rightly so. But there were great Justices before Marshall. One of those great Justices was James Iredell. No Justice in the Court's history has provided a more detailed or sophisticated explanation and justification of the doctrine of judicial review. Iredell needs a bard, and this Essay is my ode to his memory.

William Johnson, The Dog That Did Not Bark?, Mark R. Killenbeck

Vanderbilt Law Review

The conventional wisdom is that Justice William Johnson, Jr., was the "the first dissenter." This is not literally true. The first published opinion of the Court was Georgia v. Brailsford, in which each member of the Court expressed his views seriatim. Ironically, the first to speak was the first Justice Johnson, Thomas of Maryland, whose reasoning helped create a 4-2 split that produced a number of Supreme Court firsts: the first published set of opinions, the first split decision, and the first dissent.

It was the "other" Justice Johnson, William of South Carolina, who earned the reputation as the first …

Bushrod Washington, Herbert A. Johnson

Vanderbilt Law Review

In October 1822, President Thomas Jefferson urged Justice William Johnson to take the lead in reinstituting the Jay-Ellsworth Court's practice of issuing seriatim opinions. He extolled the English preference for documenting each judge's reasoning on the issues before the Court and deplored its recent abandonment under the influence of Lord Mansfield. Justifying his own silent acquiescence in opinions of the Marshall Court, Johnson pointed to the situation when he joined the U.S. Supreme Court in 1804. He recalled that "Cushing was incompetent. Chase could not be got to think or write-Patterson [sic] was a slow man and willingly declined the …

Jacksonian Jurisprudence And The Obscurity Of Justice John Catron, Austin Allen

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Article argues that Justice Catron's acceptance of the general premises of the Court's Jacksonian jurisprudence accounts for his obscurity. Part One demonstrates that Catron articulated a similar framework while serving on the Tennessee Supreme Court. Part Two illustrates his continued support for that framework after he moved to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part Three, however, demonstrates that, although he embraced much of the Taney Court's jurisprudence, Catron did not move in lockstep with his colleagues. Indeed, the elements he emphasized within that framework-namely, support for state sovereignty and equality as well as an aversion to judicial policymaking-led him to …

John Mclean: Moderate Abolitionist And Supreme Court Politician, Paul Finkelman

Vanderbilt Law Review

His thirty-two years on the Supreme Court make him one of the twelve longest serving Justices in history. At the time of his death, he was the third longest serving Justice in the history of the Court, and he is sixth in length of service among all Justices who served before the twentieth century. He wrote about 240 majority opinions and about sixty separate concurring and dissenting opinions. Yet he is about as obscure a Justice as there has ever been. Few Justices have worked so hard for such a long period of time, and yet had so little impact …

The Perils Of Popularity: David Josiah Brewer And The Politics Of Judicial Reputation, J. Gordon Hylton

Vanderbilt Law Review

David Brewer is hardly a household name in the contemporary legal academy. Most American professors of constitutional law would have a hard time placing his nearly twenty-one years of service on the U.S. Supreme Court, though most would be savvy enough to guess "Lochner era." He is probably the least well-known of all the Justices whose careers are examined in this Symposium. (Brewer's longtime colleague Rufus Peckham is probably his chief contender for this title.) For the record, Brewer sat on the Supreme Court from January of 1890 until his death in March of 1910.

In his own era, Brewer …

Rufus W. Peckham And Economic Liberty, James W. Ely, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is striking that Rufus W. Peckham has received so little scholarly attention and remains without a biography. He was, of course, the author of Lochner v. New York (1905), one of the most famous and contested decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Moreover, Peckham wrote important opinions dealing with contractual freedom, antitrust law, eminent domain, dormant commerce power, and the Eleventh Amendment. Indeed, Owen M. Fiss maintains that Peckham and David J. Brewer were intellectual leaders of the Fuller Court, "influential within the dominant coalition and the source of the ideas that gave the Court its sweep …

"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie

Vanderbilt Law Review

Article III is odd. In contrast to Articles 12 and II, which specify in some detail how the legislative and executive branches are to be assembled, Article III says virtually nothing about the institutional design of the Supreme Court.

Consistent with this Constitutional silence, the Court's look, shape, and behavior have adapted to changed circumstances. For example, the Court's membership has changed substantially. Initially, six Justices sat on the Court; in time, the Court grew to ten and shrank to seven. Only in 1869 did it settle at nine. Likewise, the Court's jurisdiction has changed, first expanding, then contracting, and …

"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.

"The Threes": Re-Imagining Supreme Court Decisionmaking, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Essay--the first in a series of essays designed to reimagine the Supreme Court--we argue that Congress should authorize the Court to adopt, in whole or part, panel decision making... With respect to the prospect of different Court outcomes, we demonstrate empirically in this Essay that the vast majority of cases decided during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries--including "Grutter", "Roe", and "Bush v. Gore" --would have come out the same way if the Court had decided them in panels rather than as a full Court.

From Judge To Justice: Social Background Theory And The Supreme Court, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Roberts Court Justices already have revealed many differences from one another, but they also share a (possibly) significant commonality: Presidents promoted all of them to the U.S. Supreme Court from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This means, of course, that they initially learned how to be judges while serving on a circuit court. How might the Justices' common route to the Court affect their actions on it? Social background theory hypothesizes that prior experience influences subsequent behavior such as voting, opinion writing, and coalition formation. This Article empirically analyzes promotion to the Supreme Court and examines the implications of …

The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Into The Sunset, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this essay, our third and last in a series, we employ our previously developed techniques to measure the power of the Justices in the Rehnquist Court over its full 11 year run. Once again, Justice Kennedy rises to the top of our rankings, as he had done earlier. Our methods identify Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg as being notable either for their influence or lack thereof. In addition, we rejoin the debate on the connection between being the median justice and being the most powerful one. We question whether even the most sophisticated methods of finding the median justice …

Federalism And Accountability, Timothy Meyer

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article examines how one particular state institution, state attorneys general (SAGs), has operated within a unique set of institutional and political constraints to create state-based regulation with nationwide impact in policy areas including consumer protection, antitrust, environmental regulation, and securities regulation. This state-based regulation casts doubt on one of the principle rationales advanced in the Supreme Court's anticommandeering line of cases for limiting federal power; namely, that judicially-enforced limits on federal power enhance electoral accountability, a concept central to our democracy. If in the absence of federal regulation narrowly accountable state-based actors from a small number of states can …

Getting The Math Right: Why California Has Too Many Seats In The House Of Representatives, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law Review

"One person, one vote" sounds like a simple mathematical equation. Actually, it isn't quite that easy, but over the last forty years, the Supreme Court has distilled a fairly stable and predictable test for resolving the basic issue of equal representation: how much population difference between districts is permissible? In one area of representation, however, the Court has gotten the math wrong. In its only opinion on the decennial apportionment of Congress, the 1992 case U.S. Department of Commerce v. Montana, the Court punted. Rather than apply its well-established test from the districting cases, the Court deferred to Congress on …

Other Disciplines, Methodologies, And Countries: Studying Courts And Crisis, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

How do governments and their citizens respond to fear and risk in times of crisis? Dr. Lee Epstein and Professor Christina Wells, in papers presented on the final symposium panel focus in particular on the Supreme Court's response to government encroachment on individual liberties during a national emergency. Their work is made particularly timely by three Supreme Court decisions this past term. In this essay, I begin by framing the issue very briefly. I then argue that understanding this issue requires scholars to follow Epstein and Wells by looking to other disciplines, methodologies, and countries.

Judicial Independence And The Ambiguity Of Article Iii Protections, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Is the federal judiciary truly an independent body? A quick glance at the Constitution would suggest the answer is yes. The Constitution provides for life tenure and a difficult removal process for federal judges that together, as the common wisdom goes, shield federal judges from the shifting winds of the more political branches and the public at large. The author of this essay argues, however, that on a closer examination of the protections provided for by the Constitution, judicial independence might be more mirage than truism. Threats to judicial independence arise not only externally through the actions of the other …

The Federal Court System: A Principal-Agent Perspective, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Professor Merrill ably demonstrates that Supreme Court decisions should be examined as the product of an inherently political institution. Observers who assert that Justices are best understood as prophets of the law are practicing an intellectual sleight of hand that allows them to ignore the non­ doctrinal factors that affect judicial behavior. Such an effort is understandable. The Court is a much more complicated subject if its rulings reflect nonlegal factors as well as legal ones. The desire, however, to ignore the true character of the Court produces accounts of its behavior that are inadequate, incorrect, or wholly without content. …

The Dimension Of The Supreme Court, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Lawrence Sirovich introduced two novel mathematical techniques to study patterns in recent Supreme Court decisions. One of these methods, information theory, has never been applied previously. The other method, singular value decomposition, is closely related to other methods that have previously been employed.

In this paper I give an explication of these two methods and evaluate their use in the context of understanding the Supreme Court. I conclude that information theory holds some promise for furthering our understanding but singular value decomposition, as applied by Sirovich, is …

Pick A Number, Any Number: State Representation In Congress After The 2000 Census, Suzanna Sherry, Paul H. Edelman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this essay, Professors Edelman and Sherry explain the mathematics behind the allocation of congressional seats to each state, and survey the different methods of allocation that Congress has used over the years. Using 2000 census figures, they calculate each state's allocation under five different methods, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods.